Reclaiming Misery aka Reclaiming History

[John Mytton]

Once again, Bill doesn't understand how burden of proof works. 

Prove it to who, you?



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Prove it to who, you?

Anyone who thinks that "prove Oswald didn't do it" is a valid argument for Oswald doing it has already lost.

[John Mytton]

Anyone who thinks that "prove Oswald didn't do it" is a valid argument for Oswald doing it has already lost.

You do know there is a difference between proof and evidence?



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

You do know there is a difference between proof and evidence?

Why yes, "John", I do.  Do you?

[John Mytton]

Why yes, "John", I do.  Do you?

Sure you do!



JohnM

[Bill Brown]

Once again, Bill doesn't understand how burden of proof works.  Or how lineups are supposed to work.

LOL.  Name one witness . . . except for the ones who I don't believe because they said something I don't like.

More nonsense.

This isn't about burden of proof.  But, I see why you'd want to change the subject.

It's obvious that you can't name one witness who I am ignoring, regarding whether or not Oswald was Tippit's murderer.

[Bill Brown]

If you have evidence of Acquilla Clemons not seeing things let's see it. I'll wait.

All you have to do is watch her interview with Mark Lane.  Duh.

[John Iacoletti]

More nonsense.

This isn't about burden of proof.  But, I see why you'd want to change the subject.

It's totally about burden of proof.  Whether or not I can name a witness who said Oswald was NOT the cop-killer is completely irrelevant to your claim that Oswald killed Tippit.

It's obvious that you can't name one witness who I am ignoring, regarding whether or not Oswald was Tippit's murderer.

There is only a single eyewitness to Tippit being murdered.

But I can name several witnesses you are ignoring the testimony of.  You just handwave them away with your "not a real witness" nonsense.